If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
On 04/12/2013 11:59 AM, Nate Nagel anosognosically driveled:
> Proof that anyone can spew advice on the interwebs eh? why does the needle on my irony meter seem to be all bent up like a watch spring??? oh, it's nate spewing "advice" on the interwebs. -- fact check required |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
On 04/13/2013 05:52 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:59:37 -0400, Nate Nagel > > wrote: > >> On 04/12/2013 02:30 PM, Nate Nagel wrote: >>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits >>> their use? >>> >>> Was having a discussion with a mechanic yesterday and the wrench was >>> saying that it was easier to use a compression fitting than double >>> flaring and he didn't have a problem using them; my position was that if >>> I needed to replace a hard line where it was easier to cut and splice in >>> the middle than rerun the whole thing that I would always use a double >>> flare and a union, because of the impossibility of the fitting blowing >>> apart under pressure save for a failure of the tubing itself. the >>> discussion was prompted because he was looking at a repair I'd done on a >>> friend's vehicle when the rear brakes had failed; the hose to the rear >>> axle had failed and replacement required replacement of both the axle >>> lines and the back half of the rear body line due to rust, and he'd >>> noticed that the one splice that I'd done was a double flare union. >>> >>> However when I went to research the issue I see a lot of opinions that >>> "it's illegal" to use compression fittings but no links to actual >>> references nor could I find anything in the pertinent safety inspection >>> standards (NB: I'm not a vehicle inspector nor have I ever been, so I >>> don't know if there is an "unwritten rule" that compression fittings = >>> failure.) If anyone has any knowledge of this issue I'd appreciate your >>> input esp. if it is specific to VA, MD, or DC. >>> >>> I also certainly hope that the mechanic was referring to a good steel >>> Swagelok fitting (which is at least rated for the pressures used in an >>> automotive brake application) and not the brass ones like you'd use to >>> hook up an icemaker! >>> >>> nate >>> >> >> Proof that anyone can spew advice on the interwebs >> >> http://www.ehow.com/how_5499634_spli...ake-lines.html >> >> Sadly, ehow doesn't seem to have a "-1" button. I'm guessing most >> intelligent people take anything posted there with a shaker of salt >> anyway, but really, this is astonishingly irresponsible. >> >> nate > > Got curious and googled on this subject. Lots of opinions of course. > Looks like there really isn't any reason not to use compression > fittings as far as them coming apart, the only issue seemed to be > leaking if the compression fittings are over-compressed. People don't > like their brake fluid leaking out. And don't use brass on steel > tubing. So when all is said it looks like it can be done safely if > you pay attention to what you are doing but that still doesn't answer > the "is it legal" question. I'd guess the reason it's not legal, if > it fact it's not, is because there is an SAE spec on braking systems > requiring double flare fittings and that the SAE spec is incorporated > by reference into the safety regs. > But there are plenty of vehicles out there factory sold without double flares but ISO "bubble" flares as I discovered to my chagrin when I had to replace the first brake line on my first GTI And it took me quite a while to find an inexpensive ISO flare tool, but this was back when the interwebs weren't as developed as they are today. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
On 04/13/2013 06:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:41:33 -0400, "Steve W." > > wrote: > >> Nate Nagel wrote: >>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits >>> their use? >>> >>> Was having a discussion with a mechanic yesterday and the wrench was >>> saying that it was easier to use a compression fitting than double >>> flaring and he didn't have a problem using them; my position was that if >>> I needed to replace a hard line where it was easier to cut and splice in >>> the middle than rerun the whole thing that I would always use a double >>> flare and a union, because of the impossibility of the fitting blowing >>> apart under pressure save for a failure of the tubing itself. the >>> discussion was prompted because he was looking at a repair I'd done on a >>> friend's vehicle when the rear brakes had failed; the hose to the rear >>> axle had failed and replacement required replacement of both the axle >>> lines and the back half of the rear body line due to rust, and he'd >>> noticed that the one splice that I'd done was a double flare union. >>> >>> However when I went to research the issue I see a lot of opinions that >>> "it's illegal" to use compression fittings but no links to actual >>> references nor could I find anything in the pertinent safety inspection >>> standards (NB: I'm not a vehicle inspector nor have I ever been, so I >>> don't know if there is an "unwritten rule" that compression fittings = >>> failure.) If anyone has any knowledge of this issue I'd appreciate your >>> input esp. if it is specific to VA, MD, or DC. >>> >>> I also certainly hope that the mechanic was referring to a good steel >>> Swagelok fitting (which is at least rated for the pressures used in an >>> automotive brake application) and not the brass ones like you'd use to >>> hook up an icemaker! >>> >>> nate >>> >> >> Maryland inspection regarding brakes. >> >> Procedures: Reject Vehicle If: >> (a) Hydraulic System—Visually inspect condition of hydraulic system. >> (i) Inspect wheel cylinders for leakage and operation. Do not >> remove dust covers. >> (ii) Inspect hydraulic hoses and brake lines for leaks, cracks, >> chafing, flattened or restricted sections, improper support, rusting >> causing pitting, and improper material. >> (iii) Inspect master cylinder for leakage and fluid level of all >> sections. (Be sure no dirt gets into reservoir when cover is removed and >> that the gasket is serviceable.) >> (a) >> (i) Wheel cylinder leaks or fails to operate. >> (ii) Hoses, or brake lines are cracked, chafed, flattened, >> restricted, or are rusted and pitting is visible, are improperly >> supported, or lines have been repaired or replaced with copper tubing or >> other material not designed for hydraulic brake lines. Hoses or brake >> lines are mounted to contact wheels or body during steering or >> suspension movement. >> (iii) Master cylinder leaks. >> (iv) The fluid level in any section is less than 1/2 full. >> (v) The gasket does not properly seal master cylinder. >> >> Compression fittings fall under the "material not designed for hydraulic >> brake lines" >> >> Connecticut: >> >> BRAKE LINES - Tubing must be steel and properly attached and supported >> (at least every 18") >> and hoses shall not be kinked, twisted, or frayed. Hoses must not be >> under tension during full right >> and full left-hand turn, or during full compression or full extension of >> suspension. Automotive >> stainless steel tubing and braided hoses are acceptable but compression >> fitting will not be allowed. >> >> >> >> In NY they are specifically called out as an automatic fail if used on >> any part of the brake system as well. > > > Full employment acts for shops and bureaucrats. A sad byproduct of > nanny states. > No argument here, I'm glad I don't live in MD anymore. The inspection there is brutal; I failed once for a windshield that was "too sandblasted" I **** you not and had a friend have to replace her exhaust system because the inspector told her that he wouldn't pass it if an exhaust shop welded a dime-sized patch over a hole in her muffler. I'm all for safe and reliable, but that's just ludicrous. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
On 04/13/2013 06:37 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 11:59 AM, Nate Nagel anosognosically driveled: > >> Proof that anyone can spew advice on the interwebs > > eh? why does the needle on my irony meter seem to be all bent up like a > watch spring??? > > oh, it's nate spewing "advice" on the interwebs. > > hey, we're trying to have a serious discussion here, it was going well until you shat on the carpet. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
On Apr 13, 7:46*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 04/13/2013 06:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:41:33 -0400, "Steve W." > > > wrote: > > >> Nate Nagel wrote: > >>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits > >>> their use? > > >>> Was having a discussion with a mechanic yesterday and the wrench was > >>> saying that it was easier to use a compression fitting than double > >>> flaring and he didn't have a problem using them; my position was that if > >>> I needed to replace a hard line where it was easier to cut and splice in > >>> the middle than rerun the whole thing that I would always use a double > >>> flare and a union, because of the impossibility of the fitting blowing > >>> apart under pressure save for a failure of the tubing itself. *the > >>> discussion was prompted because he was looking at a repair I'd done on a > >>> friend's vehicle when the rear brakes had failed; the hose to the rear > >>> axle had failed and replacement required replacement of both the axle > >>> lines and the back half of the rear body line due to rust, and he'd > >>> noticed that the one splice that I'd done was a double flare union. > > >>> However when I went to research the issue I see a lot of opinions that > >>> "it's illegal" to use compression fittings but no links to actual > >>> references nor could I find anything in the pertinent safety inspection > >>> standards (NB: I'm not a vehicle inspector nor have I ever been, so I > >>> don't know if there is an "unwritten rule" that compression fittings = > >>> failure.) *If anyone has any knowledge of this issue I'd appreciate your > >>> input esp. if it is specific to VA, MD, or DC. > > >>> I also certainly hope that the mechanic was referring to a good steel > >>> Swagelok fitting (which is at least rated for the pressures used in an > >>> automotive brake application) and not the brass ones like you'd use to > >>> hook up an icemaker! > > >>> nate > > >> Maryland inspection regarding brakes. > > >> Procedures: * *Reject Vehicle If: > >> * *(a) Hydraulic System—Visually inspect condition of hydraulic system. > >> * * *(i) Inspect wheel cylinders for leakage and operation. Do not > >> remove dust covers. > >> * * *(ii) Inspect hydraulic hoses and brake lines for leaks, cracks, > >> chafing, flattened or restricted sections, improper support, rusting > >> causing pitting, and improper material. > >> * * *(iii) Inspect master cylinder for leakage and fluid level of all > >> sections. (Be sure no dirt gets into reservoir when cover is removed and > >> that the gasket is serviceable.) > >> * * * * *(a) > >> * * *(i) Wheel cylinder leaks or fails to operate. > >> * * *(ii) Hoses, or brake lines are cracked, chafed, flattened, > >> restricted, or are rusted and pitting is visible, are improperly > >> supported, or lines have been repaired or replaced with copper tubing or > >> other material not designed for hydraulic brake lines. Hoses or brake > >> lines are mounted to contact wheels or body during steering or > >> suspension movement. > >> * * *(iii) Master cylinder leaks. > >> * * *(iv) The fluid level in any section is less than 1/2 full. > >> * * *(v) The gasket does not properly seal master cylinder. > > >> Compression fittings fall under the "material not designed for hydraulic > >> brake lines" > > >> Connecticut: > > >> BRAKE LINES - Tubing must be steel and properly attached and supported > >> (at least every 18") > >> and hoses shall not be kinked, twisted, or frayed. Hoses must not be > >> under tension during full right > >> and full left-hand turn, or during full compression or full extension of > >> suspension. Automotive > >> stainless steel tubing and braided hoses are acceptable but compression > >> fitting will not be allowed. > > >> In NY they are specifically called out as an automatic fail if used on > >> any part of the brake system as well. > > > Full employment acts for shops and bureaucrats. *A sad byproduct of > > nanny states. > > No argument here, I'm glad I don't live in MD anymore. *The inspection > there is brutal; I failed once for a windshield that was "too > sandblasted" I **** you not and had a friend have to replace her exhaust > system because the inspector told her that he wouldn't pass it if an > exhaust shop welded a dime-sized patch over a hole in her muffler. *I'm > all for safe and reliable, but that's just ludicrous. > > nate > > -- > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel yes inspections are brutal, but you only have to do them once.. They failed my windshield on an old car I used to own for the same reason ( it did need to be replaced). Headlights & ball joints always seem to fail too even when the ball joints are new. As for the exhaust they probably figured since someone welded over a rust hole that the muffler was probably full of rust. Plus that hole can easily open back up. Not all that ludicrous. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
On 04/15/2013 11:16 AM, m6onz5a wrote:
> On Apr 13, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote: >> On 04/13/2013 06:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:41:33 -0400, "Steve W." > >>> wrote: >> >>>> Nate Nagel wrote: >>>>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits >>>>> their use? >> >>>>> Was having a discussion with a mechanic yesterday and the wrench was >>>>> saying that it was easier to use a compression fitting than double >>>>> flaring and he didn't have a problem using them; my position was that if >>>>> I needed to replace a hard line where it was easier to cut and splice in >>>>> the middle than rerun the whole thing that I would always use a double >>>>> flare and a union, because of the impossibility of the fitting blowing >>>>> apart under pressure save for a failure of the tubing itself. the >>>>> discussion was prompted because he was looking at a repair I'd done on a >>>>> friend's vehicle when the rear brakes had failed; the hose to the rear >>>>> axle had failed and replacement required replacement of both the axle >>>>> lines and the back half of the rear body line due to rust, and he'd >>>>> noticed that the one splice that I'd done was a double flare union. >> >>>>> However when I went to research the issue I see a lot of opinions that >>>>> "it's illegal" to use compression fittings but no links to actual >>>>> references nor could I find anything in the pertinent safety inspection >>>>> standards (NB: I'm not a vehicle inspector nor have I ever been, so I >>>>> don't know if there is an "unwritten rule" that compression fittings = >>>>> failure.) If anyone has any knowledge of this issue I'd appreciate your >>>>> input esp. if it is specific to VA, MD, or DC. >> >>>>> I also certainly hope that the mechanic was referring to a good steel >>>>> Swagelok fitting (which is at least rated for the pressures used in an >>>>> automotive brake application) and not the brass ones like you'd use to >>>>> hook up an icemaker! >> >>>>> nate >> >>>> Maryland inspection regarding brakes. >> >>>> Procedures: Reject Vehicle If: >>>> (a) Hydraulic System—Visually inspect condition of hydraulic system. >>>> (i) Inspect wheel cylinders for leakage and operation. Do not >>>> remove dust covers. >>>> (ii) Inspect hydraulic hoses and brake lines for leaks, cracks, >>>> chafing, flattened or restricted sections, improper support, rusting >>>> causing pitting, and improper material. >>>> (iii) Inspect master cylinder for leakage and fluid level of all >>>> sections. (Be sure no dirt gets into reservoir when cover is removed and >>>> that the gasket is serviceable.) >>>> (a) >>>> (i) Wheel cylinder leaks or fails to operate. >>>> (ii) Hoses, or brake lines are cracked, chafed, flattened, >>>> restricted, or are rusted and pitting is visible, are improperly >>>> supported, or lines have been repaired or replaced with copper tubing or >>>> other material not designed for hydraulic brake lines. Hoses or brake >>>> lines are mounted to contact wheels or body during steering or >>>> suspension movement. >>>> (iii) Master cylinder leaks. >>>> (iv) The fluid level in any section is less than 1/2 full. >>>> (v) The gasket does not properly seal master cylinder. >> >>>> Compression fittings fall under the "material not designed for hydraulic >>>> brake lines" >> >>>> Connecticut: >> >>>> BRAKE LINES - Tubing must be steel and properly attached and supported >>>> (at least every 18") >>>> and hoses shall not be kinked, twisted, or frayed. Hoses must not be >>>> under tension during full right >>>> and full left-hand turn, or during full compression or full extension of >>>> suspension. Automotive >>>> stainless steel tubing and braided hoses are acceptable but compression >>>> fitting will not be allowed. >> >>>> In NY they are specifically called out as an automatic fail if used on >>>> any part of the brake system as well. >> >>> Full employment acts for shops and bureaucrats. A sad byproduct of >>> nanny states. >> >> No argument here, I'm glad I don't live in MD anymore. The inspection >> there is brutal; I failed once for a windshield that was "too >> sandblasted" I **** you not and had a friend have to replace her exhaust >> system because the inspector told her that he wouldn't pass it if an >> exhaust shop welded a dime-sized patch over a hole in her muffler. I'm >> all for safe and reliable, but that's just ludicrous. >> >> nate >> >> -- >> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > yes inspections are brutal, but you only have to do them once.. They > failed my windshield on an old car I used to own for the same reason > ( it did need to be replaced). Headlights & ball joints always seem > to fail too even when the ball joints are new. > > As for the exhaust they probably figured since someone welded over a > rust hole that the muffler was probably full of rust. Plus that hole > can easily open back up. Not all that ludicrous. > It actually wasn't repaired, she never knew the hole was there. It was a factory stainless system in excellent shape, it looked like one of the drain holes in the bottom of the muffler just opened up a little bit through corrosion. The car wasn't even noticeably louder than stock and there weren't any leaks/holes anywhere in the exhaust other than that one little hole in the muffler. The system could have lasted another 10 years or so with a proper repair, but the guy was a total jerk to her and told her that she had to come back to him for reinspection by law (I believe that to be true) and that he would fail her unless the entire exhaust system was replaced (it was a welded assembly from the cat back, and he insisted that no component replacements were acceptable.) Even if welding the muffler were unacceptable I do not see why the muffler alone could not have been replaced and the midpipe reused - like I said, IMHO they are over the top ludicrous and cause people to spend money that they don't have to. He also failed her for a crack in the windshield that was at the upper left corner; technically illegal but couldn't even be seen from the inside of the car. She ended up spending about the value of the car just to import it into MD for those two items alone; the car itself was in good shape as I had gone through the suspension and brakes and replaced her clutch hydraulics for her and hadn't noticed anything amiss either by inspection or from test driving the car. The car that I took through and failed for the windshield should have failed - but for a failed brake proportioning valve that I deliberately did not repair to give the inspector something to catch that I was going to repair anyway. He missed that but nailed me on the windshield which was in fine shape. However I didn't fight him as it needed to come out anyway as it was glued in but leaking around the edges so I just had it replaced instead of reusing the old one. My impression of the MD safety inspection is that it must have been enacted through heavy lobbying by car dealers to make private party car sales damn near impossible. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
m6onz5a wrote:
> On Apr 13, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote: >> On 04/13/2013 06:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:41:33 -0400, "Steve W." > >>> wrote: >>>> Nate Nagel wrote: >>>>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits >>>>> their use? >>>>> Was having a discussion with a mechanic yesterday and the wrench was >>>>> saying that it was easier to use a compression fitting than double >>>>> flaring and he didn't have a problem using them; my position was that if >>>>> I needed to replace a hard line where it was easier to cut and splice in >>>>> the middle than rerun the whole thing that I would always use a double >>>>> flare and a union, because of the impossibility of the fitting blowing >>>>> apart under pressure save for a failure of the tubing itself. the >>>>> discussion was prompted because he was looking at a repair I'd done on a >>>>> friend's vehicle when the rear brakes had failed; the hose to the rear >>>>> axle had failed and replacement required replacement of both the axle >>>>> lines and the back half of the rear body line due to rust, and he'd >>>>> noticed that the one splice that I'd done was a double flare union. >>>>> However when I went to research the issue I see a lot of opinions that >>>>> "it's illegal" to use compression fittings but no links to actual >>>>> references nor could I find anything in the pertinent safety inspection >>>>> standards (NB: I'm not a vehicle inspector nor have I ever been, so I >>>>> don't know if there is an "unwritten rule" that compression fittings = >>>>> failure.) If anyone has any knowledge of this issue I'd appreciate your >>>>> input esp. if it is specific to VA, MD, or DC. >>>>> I also certainly hope that the mechanic was referring to a good steel >>>>> Swagelok fitting (which is at least rated for the pressures used in an >>>>> automotive brake application) and not the brass ones like you'd use to >>>>> hook up an icemaker! >>>>> nate >>>> Maryland inspection regarding brakes. >>>> Procedures: Reject Vehicle If: >>>> (a) Hydraulic System—Visually inspect condition of hydraulic system. >>>> (i) Inspect wheel cylinders for leakage and operation. Do not >>>> remove dust covers. >>>> (ii) Inspect hydraulic hoses and brake lines for leaks, cracks, >>>> chafing, flattened or restricted sections, improper support, rusting >>>> causing pitting, and improper material. >>>> (iii) Inspect master cylinder for leakage and fluid level of all >>>> sections. (Be sure no dirt gets into reservoir when cover is removed and >>>> that the gasket is serviceable.) >>>> (a) >>>> (i) Wheel cylinder leaks or fails to operate. >>>> (ii) Hoses, or brake lines are cracked, chafed, flattened, >>>> restricted, or are rusted and pitting is visible, are improperly >>>> supported, or lines have been repaired or replaced with copper tubing or >>>> other material not designed for hydraulic brake lines. Hoses or brake >>>> lines are mounted to contact wheels or body during steering or >>>> suspension movement. >>>> (iii) Master cylinder leaks. >>>> (iv) The fluid level in any section is less than 1/2 full. >>>> (v) The gasket does not properly seal master cylinder. >>>> Compression fittings fall under the "material not designed for hydraulic >>>> brake lines" >>>> Connecticut: >>>> BRAKE LINES - Tubing must be steel and properly attached and supported >>>> (at least every 18") >>>> and hoses shall not be kinked, twisted, or frayed. Hoses must not be >>>> under tension during full right >>>> and full left-hand turn, or during full compression or full extension of >>>> suspension. Automotive >>>> stainless steel tubing and braided hoses are acceptable but compression >>>> fitting will not be allowed. >>>> In NY they are specifically called out as an automatic fail if used on >>>> any part of the brake system as well. >>> Full employment acts for shops and bureaucrats. A sad byproduct of >>> nanny states. >> No argument here, I'm glad I don't live in MD anymore. The inspection >> there is brutal; I failed once for a windshield that was "too >> sandblasted" I **** you not and had a friend have to replace her exhaust >> system because the inspector told her that he wouldn't pass it if an >> exhaust shop welded a dime-sized patch over a hole in her muffler. I'm >> all for safe and reliable, but that's just ludicrous. >> >> nate >> >> -- >> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > yes inspections are brutal, but you only have to do them once.. They > failed my windshield on an old car I used to own for the same reason > ( it did need to be replaced). Headlights & ball joints always seem > to fail too even when the ball joints are new. > > As for the exhaust they probably figured since someone welded over a > rust hole that the muffler was probably full of rust. Plus that hole > can easily open back up. Not all that ludicrous. You may do it once, Many states do it yearly. -- Steve W. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
On Apr 15, 1:05*pm, "Steve W." > wrote:
> m6onz5a wrote: > > On Apr 13, 7:46 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote: > >> On 04/13/2013 06:01 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: > > >>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:41:33 -0400, "Steve W." > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Nate Nagel wrote: > >>>>> Does anyone have a link to any law or standard that allows or prohibits > >>>>> their use? > >>>>> Was having a discussion with a mechanic yesterday and the wrench was > >>>>> saying that it was easier to use a compression fitting than double > >>>>> flaring and he didn't have a problem using them; my position was that if > >>>>> I needed to replace a hard line where it was easier to cut and splice in > >>>>> the middle than rerun the whole thing that I would always use a double > >>>>> flare and a union, because of the impossibility of the fitting blowing > >>>>> apart under pressure save for a failure of the tubing itself. *the > >>>>> discussion was prompted because he was looking at a repair I'd done on a > >>>>> friend's vehicle when the rear brakes had failed; the hose to the rear > >>>>> axle had failed and replacement required replacement of both the axle > >>>>> lines and the back half of the rear body line due to rust, and he'd > >>>>> noticed that the one splice that I'd done was a double flare union. > >>>>> However when I went to research the issue I see a lot of opinions that > >>>>> "it's illegal" to use compression fittings but no links to actual > >>>>> references nor could I find anything in the pertinent safety inspection > >>>>> standards (NB: I'm not a vehicle inspector nor have I ever been, so I > >>>>> don't know if there is an "unwritten rule" that compression fittings = > >>>>> failure.) *If anyone has any knowledge of this issue I'd appreciate your > >>>>> input esp. if it is specific to VA, MD, or DC. > >>>>> I also certainly hope that the mechanic was referring to a good steel > >>>>> Swagelok fitting (which is at least rated for the pressures used in an > >>>>> automotive brake application) and not the brass ones like you'd use to > >>>>> hook up an icemaker! > >>>>> nate > >>>> Maryland inspection regarding brakes. > >>>> Procedures: * *Reject Vehicle If: > >>>> * *(a) Hydraulic System—Visually inspect condition of hydraulic system. > >>>> * * *(i) Inspect wheel cylinders for leakage and operation. Do not > >>>> remove dust covers. > >>>> * * *(ii) Inspect hydraulic hoses and brake lines for leaks, cracks, > >>>> chafing, flattened or restricted sections, improper support, rusting > >>>> causing pitting, and improper material. > >>>> * * *(iii) Inspect master cylinder for leakage and fluid level of all > >>>> sections. (Be sure no dirt gets into reservoir when cover is removed and > >>>> that the gasket is serviceable.) > >>>> * * * * *(a) > >>>> * * *(i) Wheel cylinder leaks or fails to operate. > >>>> * * *(ii) Hoses, or brake lines are cracked, chafed, flattened, > >>>> restricted, or are rusted and pitting is visible, are improperly > >>>> supported, or lines have been repaired or replaced with copper tubing or > >>>> other material not designed for hydraulic brake lines. Hoses or brake > >>>> lines are mounted to contact wheels or body during steering or > >>>> suspension movement. > >>>> * * *(iii) Master cylinder leaks. > >>>> * * *(iv) The fluid level in any section is less than 1/2 full.. > >>>> * * *(v) The gasket does not properly seal master cylinder. > >>>> Compression fittings fall under the "material not designed for hydraulic > >>>> brake lines" > >>>> Connecticut: > >>>> BRAKE LINES - Tubing must be steel and properly attached and supported > >>>> (at least every 18") > >>>> and hoses shall not be kinked, twisted, or frayed. Hoses must not be > >>>> under tension during full right > >>>> and full left-hand turn, or during full compression or full extension of > >>>> suspension. Automotive > >>>> stainless steel tubing and braided hoses are acceptable but compression > >>>> fitting will not be allowed. > >>>> In NY they are specifically called out as an automatic fail if used on > >>>> any part of the brake system as well. > >>> Full employment acts for shops and bureaucrats. *A sad byproduct of > >>> nanny states. > >> No argument here, I'm glad I don't live in MD anymore. *The inspection > >> there is brutal; I failed once for a windshield that was "too > >> sandblasted" I **** you not and had a friend have to replace her exhaust > >> system because the inspector told her that he wouldn't pass it if an > >> exhaust shop welded a dime-sized patch over a hole in her muffler. *I'm > >> all for safe and reliable, but that's just ludicrous. > > >> nate > > >> -- > >> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > > yes inspections are brutal, but you only have to do them once.. They > > failed my windshield on an old car I used to own for the same reason > > ( it did need to be replaced). *Headlights & ball joints always seem > > to fail too even when the ball joints are new. > > > As for the exhaust they probably figured since someone welded over a > > rust hole that the muffler was probably full of rust. Plus that hole > > can easily open back up. *Not all that ludicrous. > > You may do it once, Many states do it yearly. > > -- > Steve W. Most of the yearly inspections are usually just a safety inspection (brakes, tires wipers, exhaust etc) as for the drain hole having a little corrosion that is all he needed to see. I still don't know why just the muffler couldn't be replaced? If he had issues in the past letting vehicles slide through he could have been extra thorough. Who knows. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
compression fittings on brake lines
replying to Nate Nagel, RedRooster wrote:
Hey Nate just to let you know... http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/11.14.09.05 -- for full context, visit https://www.motorsforum.com/tech/com...es-110119-.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Compression Fittings On Brake Lines ? | Robert11 | Technology | 10 | April 13th 07 06:34 PM |
Bleeding brake lines and replacing brake caliper and piston | Jason[_1_] | Ford Explorer | 2 | March 20th 07 01:42 AM |
Getting fuel line compression fittings leak free | Ed | Technology | 22 | January 9th 07 05:50 PM |
Info: Note on Ford brake-line fittings | Backyard Mechanic | Ford Mustang | 0 | April 17th 06 03:54 PM |
VW Brake Lines | Morgan Anderson | VW air cooled | 12 | November 27th 05 01:32 PM |